This student research project explored the question: What is the right ontology for the Anthropocene? Rather than seeking a definitive or absolute answer, we approached “rightness” in terms of practical usefulness(specifically, how different ontological frameworks can help us better understand and respond to the ecological and social challenges of our time). In the Anthropocene, where human activity has become a dominant force shaping our planet, rethinking our basic assumptions about existence and what it entails is both urgent and necessary. Our group focused on two influential theoretical approaches within the environmental humanities: Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) and New Materialism. OOO, as articulated by thinkers such as Timothy Morton, argues for the equal reality and autonomy of all objects, human and nonhuman alike. This perspective pushes against anthropocentrism and urges ethical consideration of the broader material world. In contrast, Feminist New Materialism and posthumanist perspectives—represented by scholars like Jane Bennett and Rosi Braidotti—emphasize the dynamic, relational, and politically charged nature of matter, highlighting the co-constitutive agency of both humans and nonhumans. These ontologies not only decenter the human but also foreground the entanglement of environmental and political issues. The methodology combined group discussion and creative interpretation. Each of us produced an individual podcast that applied these ontologies to literary texts, using narrative to explore how abstract philosophical ideas manifest in storytelling and cultural imagination. Literary examples served as a reflective space to test the ethical and epistemological implications of these frameworks in practice. Our findings suggest that both OOO and New Materialism offer valuable tools for reimagining human–nonhuman relations in more ethical and ecologically responsive ways. At the same time, ongoing critiques (particularly from eco-Marxist and other critical traditions) challenge their adequacy in addressing structural and systemic issues, as well as its use of language that differs from the philosophical critical tradition. These critiques open space for further inquiry: How can ontological frameworks inform real-world ecological action? And how might ontologies reconcile affective engagement with systemic critique? For this, the presentation will offer a brief overview of the debates and possible collaborative outcomes.